Comments
I saw the brief (I think you gave it) :-), and it was the convergence of three trends, not the nexus. I understand you're starting to get old and the memory is starting to fade and play tricks on you.
In all seriousness, whether SOCOM suggested we needed to counter it, the reality is in some situations these trends present threats that need to be addressed (I'll avoid the use of counter). The war between the State and various Cartels in Mexico is one of them. If we really think stability in far flung corners of the world is in our national interest, then this problem will also have to be addressed. If effective government at least partly means the ability for the State to protect its populace, then that means protect it from criminal as well as insurgent threats and also where those threats converge.
This is all part of the new threat paradigm for the future, along with potential conventional wars with North Korea, China, and numerous so called rogue nations (Iran).
Actually, what SOCOM said was "The nexus of migration, international crime and extremism." Meaning not that we need to somehow engage or counter these trends, but that we need to understand that they are acting together in new ways that create new challenges that we need to be aware of and understand.
While it isn't always an insurgency, it is always a national and sometimes a regional/global security threat that falls under the definition of Small Wars. Our defense department (and hopefully the Dept of State)will have to adapt as required to manage these threats. I think the author's article nests well with the three converging trends that SOCOM identified as a concern for our future security environment (immigration, organized crime and extremism).
Not all populace-based attacks on government are insurgency. Insurgency implies a political purpose and a broad base of popular support.
Profit or power-based movements that lack such motivation or support are not insurgency and may well be resolved by simply defeating the attacking party. Some of these movements may evolve to insurgency though. I put Mexico in a "watch" category. Not insurgency now, but who knows, as the balance of power shifts, perhaps these profit-driven criminal attacks evolve as well?
Similarly, a politically driven movement with no broad support (think Tim McVeigh) is not insurgency either.
It is just as dangerous to conflate these types of movements with insurgency as it is to conflate all violence with warfare. Differences that matter are found in the roots of the problem, not in how it manifests itself, as at that point many look very similar in action, but are very different in purpose and cure.
The author's views on the convergence / blending of criminality and war supports a number of views already posted in SWJ, but this article does an excellent job of presenting those views. Hopefully will lead to a fruitful discussion that challenges what I perceived to be our outdated COIN doctrine that was suitable for yesteryear's fights, but not today.
Good governance, democracy, civil affairs, and other soft approaches will not address the underlying reasons our foes fight, which is largely based on greed, grievance, hate, etc. The criminals must be defeated, and they won't be defeated through by these actions.